Keinstra v. King
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Ghas. Glaflm Allen, Judge. (1) Appellant is not liable under the lease, because neither an. assignment of the lease to him nor any occupation of the premises by him is shown. Dougherty v. Mathews, 35 Mo. 520; Hynes v. Ecker, 34 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Ghas. Glaflm Allen, Judge. (1) Appellant is not liable under the lease, because neither an. assignment of the lease to him nor any occupation of the premises by him is shown. Dougherty v. Mathews, 35 Mo. 520; Hynes v. Ecker, 34 Mo. App. 650. (2) Neither a contract to occupy the premises nor any occupancy thereof being shown, appellant cannot be held liable as a monthly tenant. 1 R. S. 1899, sec. 4110; Squire v. Brewing Co., 90 Mo. App. 462; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 166. Respondent personally assumed to collect all money due the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The way the court declared the law leaves but one ground on which defendant can be held personally liable for the rent, i. e., that the relation of landlord and tenant had become established between plaintiff and defendant by the latter’s use and occupation of the premises. The court declared defendant was not liable by virtue of the written lease or if the only acts of control he exercised over the premises were as president of the company; that the relation of landlord and *37tenant between him and plaintiff must have existed to lay him liable; that if tbe King…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hynes v. EckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. Granite Bituminous Paving Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1918